Intellectual property law is good. Excess in intellectual property law is not. This blog is about excess in Canadian and international copyright law, trademarks law and patent law. I practice IP law with Macera & Jarzyna, LLP in Ottawa, Canada. I've also been in government and academe. My views are purely personal and don't necessarily reflect those of my firm or any of its clients. Nothing on this blog should be taken as legal advice.

So why the difference?
AC has suddenly
and conveniently determined that “Although we have little data regarding
digital copying on campuses, historical coursepack usage data indicates that
universities copy 2.6 times more than colleges.”

This appears to
justify why the ACCC license is for $10 and the AUCCC model license is for $26.
But is there any evidence to support either figure?

AC originally sought
$45 per FTE from universities and $35 per FTE from colleges.

So why does ACCC deal now
appear to be a MUCH better deal than that of AUCC ($26) or UofT/UWO ($27.50)?
Is the discrepancy in copying quantity between universities and colleges really
so great?

However, it’s not that
the ACCC deal is so good. It isn’t – given the CCH decision from 2004 and the
imminently expected legislation, not to mention the forthcoming Supreme Court
decisions which are likely to make things better and not worse for the educators than the status
quo. It’s just that it makes the AUCC and UofT/Western deals look even worse
than they are. And they already looked pretty bad in the eyes of most both interested
and independent observers.

Indeed, the ACCC deal is about three times more expensive than the American CCC rate which most institutions don't bother using - which is now very problematic anyway given the recent Georgia State decision. Canada is way out of line with the USA, Seehereand here. Aprominent American law firm has now weighed in questioning why Canadian institutions would pay to do what may now be or soon will be legal anyway because:

Some critics argue that such a license is unnecessary, because
educators are already permitted to copy approximately that amount
without a license under existing Canadian law, or at least they will be
upon the passage of Bill C-11, which is currently pending before Parliament.

None of these figures
make very much sense – especially when compared to each other. Students, academic
staff and taxpayers will expect some answers.

Meanwhile, other questions
will arise. Will many ACCC members sign on? Will there be a “limited time”
offer re retroactivity discount? Will ACCC abruptly withdraw its objection at
the Copyright Board and abandon its membership, as did AUCC? What is the future
of the Board hearing?

HK

PS - York University has just announced that "After careful review, a decision has been made that York University will not be entering into the Access Copyright licence agreement that was negotiated by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)." York is the latest entry on Prof. Ariel Katz's Hall of F/Sh/ame.